Currently Playing:

rocketpig said:Laughably inaccurate, yes. But there is an underlying truth to the concept that over the past 30 years, the rich have been able to minimize their paid taxes while the burden for the middle class has remained relatively consistent.

But graphs like this are no better than Romney replying to a commenter "all money ends up going to an individual!" On the surface, they're true but they lack the nuance and maturity needed to enter into complex conversations about difficult problems.

Not true.

Effective federal tax rates among the bottom 50% have dropped 65% since the 1980's. Comparatively, effective federal tax rates among the top 1% have dropped only 30%. The middle and lower class pay a lot less than they have before. The only taxes that have stayed at similar levels are payroll taxes, which are generally mitigated by their other offsets (such as insane deductions and rebates that usually give them back more than they paid in).

"For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the effective federal income tax rate—what they actually pay—fell from almost 30 percent in 1995 to just over 18 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service. And for the approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29 percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true, but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so."

And that's just since 1995.

Way to take a very specific sub-set of data and skew it to your liking.

Go look at Table 6. In 1980, the Top 1% paid 19.05% of all income taxes. Today, its 37%.

Their chart is extremely disigenous. Although the effective rate among the top 400 has gone down since 1995, their share has increased significantly over the past 32 years. Additionally, the statement fails to mention what the effective rate among the other percentiles paid (I wonder why....?)

As per Table 8, the effecitve tax rate among the bottom 50% dropped from 4.39% in 1995 to 1.85% in 2009. Or a 58% drop in their effective tax rate. My statement still stands, and there is the data to prove it. By comparison, the top 1%'s effective tax rate dropped just 15% over the same period.

We the People Act removes the jurisdiction from the federals courts, because the federal courts should never have even took the case (Roe v Wade) in the first place. It's a state matter, as all other acts of violence are.

The federal courts, despite your assumptions, do not have the right to rule over anything they choose to. They are only allowed to rule on things that are related to the powers delegated in the Constitution. States can and should do all the rest. That is their obligation.

Religious matters are not covered in the Constitution? Because, unless I'm suddenly having an incredibly difficult time comprehending the English language, that's what the first half of the We The People Act is all about...

What IF the federal government etc. is/are the bad guys? If a state governor/whatever has the chance to stop arbitrary control freak laws that totally act against the constitution then the governor should be able to do it.

And about the homosexuality example: Seriously if a state and most of its citizens/voters dont want homo sexuality its their damn right to make it illegal. Noone is forcing anybody to stay in the state. IF you force people in another state with another mentality to comply with your federal rules thats WRONG. The more levels of government exist the better because the federal government in any country has no idea what the citizens in a state want and no idea whats best because they can not relate to the people in the state. Hell even the state government has no idea what the state citizens want sometimes so how should the federal government know?

IMHO the federal government should only be able to "suggest" laws and should be given the chance to convice the states. And the states should decide on their own if they accept it or not.

(I mean like in stock exchange the one with more than 50% wins. The federal government has like 40% of the "decision power" and the states have 60%. If the law of the federal government is good and convinces enough of the state government the state government can accept the federal law. If the federal government comes up with stupid laws then.... well HAHA better luck next time)

Then there is absolutely no point in remaining The United States of America. Let's just break it up into 50 separate countries.

Whether you like it or not, The Constitution is the highest law in the land. No state is allowed to violate its laws under any circumstances. Ron Paul is seeking a way to circumvent that, despite the fact that he fancies himself a Constitutionalist.

You didn't really think this through, did you? Your "system" would require for the entire government to be scrapped along with the Constitution, which is one of the most successful governing documents written by man. It's over 225 years old and has been amended only 17 times. That's insane and speaks to the power of the document. Not to mention that we already tried your idea. It failed so miserably that it almost destroyed the country before it even got going. Thankfully, the document you seem to think is trash, the Constitution, was written and it basically saved the United States from fracturing into oblivion. I might be going out on a limg here but somehow, I doubt you even know about the Articles of Confederation...

WRONG. You need to be a big country (USA) to have influence in the world. You have to team up to do something like having a strong economy etc.. Try to grow vegetables in manhatten please. See? Thats the point of the USA. Not I SAY YOU DO!. Thats also why the european union was established. Because 1000000 small countries cannot compete with the Russian Federation or the United States etc.

The only laws that should be forced to be complied with are laws that TOTALLY concern the whole united states like what kind of pesticides are allowd to grow food that is sold in the whole country ETC. What pesticides are allowed to be used to sell food in the state of its origin is a matter of the STATE not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Do you finally see what i mean?

To bad the government is violating the rules of the constitution/bill of rights etc but you seem to only see what you want to see so there is no point in talking about this topic anymore.

Currently Playing:

We the People Act removes the jurisdiction from the federals courts, because the federal courts should never have even took the case (Roe v Wade) in the first place. It's a state matter, as all other acts of violence are.

The federal courts, despite your assumptions, do not have the right to rule over anything they choose to. They are only allowed to rule on things that are related to the powers delegated in the Constitution. States can and should do all the rest. That is their obligation.

Religious matters are not covered in the Constitution? Because, unless I'm suddenly having an incredibly difficult time comprehending the English language, that's what the first half of the We The People Act is all about...

I have not read the Act, I am only speaking about how it would be used to wipe Roe v Wade from the pages of time, and make abortion a state issue once again, as it was and should be again. If you have the link to the Act, I'd be happy to take a look at it, and then let you know whether or not I agree that it's bad legislation.

But I will say that I support any legislation that seeks to overturn Court cases and other pieces of legislation. It is better to repeal things then to add things to a list that is already far too long. I am speaking in generalities, of course. Obviously, with the Civil Rights Act, all but 1 provision were advisable.

JazzB1987 said:WRONG. You need to be a big country (USA) to have influence in the world. You have to team up to do something like having a strong economy etc.. Try to grow vegetables in manhatten please. See? Thats the point of the USA. Not I SAY YOU DO!. Thats also why the european union was established. Because 1000000 small countries cannot compete with the Russian Federation or the United States etc.

The only laws that should be forced to be complied with are laws that TOTALLY concern the whole united states like what kind of pesticides are allowd to grow food that is sold in the whole country ETC. What pesticides are allowed to be used to sell food in the state of its origin is a matter of the STATE not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Do you finally see what i mean?

To bad the government is violating the rules of the constitution/bill of rights etc but you seem to only see what you want to see so there is no point in talking about this topic anymore.

Yes, I'm the one who's only seeing what I want.

Do everyone here a favor and Google "Articles of Confederation". Read the wiki article and then you'll understand why your idea is a terrible one. Your idea of a toothless Federal government being a good thing is what almost buried this country in the 1780s.

We the People Act removes the jurisdiction from the federals courts, because the federal courts should never have even took the case (Roe v Wade) in the first place. It's a state matter, as all other acts of violence are.

The federal courts, despite your assumptions, do not have the right to rule over anything they choose to. They are only allowed to rule on things that are related to the powers delegated in the Constitution. States can and should do all the rest. That is their obligation.

Religious matters are not covered in the Constitution? Because, unless I'm suddenly having an incredibly difficult time comprehending the English language, that's what the first half of the We The People Act is all about...

I have not read the Act, I am only speaking about how it would be used to wipe Roe v Wade from the pages of time, and make abortion a state issue once again, as it was and should be again. If you have the link to the Act, I'd be happy to take a look at it, and then let you know whether or not I agree that it's bad legislation.

But I will say that I support any legislation that seeks to overturn Court cases and other pieces of legislation. It is better to repeal things then to add things to a list that is already far too long. I am speaking in generalities, of course. Obviously, with the Civil Rights Act, all but 1 provision were advisable.

I linked the act in the OP. Shit, I even quoted several lines from it in my OP as well. It's all of 25 lines long. I suggest you take a look at it and then respond.

This might be the most terrifying piece of legislation I've ever seen. The courts are the only branch of government whose role involves protection of the minority from the oppression of the majority. Ron Paul wants to infringe on that right. It shows a blatant disregard for how this government works and why it works that way.

This isn't a states' rights issue. This is a civil rights issue. If Paul wants to do something like this, what is to stop him from extending this idea to other matters in the future? Way back when, I used to be a Paul supporter. But over the past decade, he has slowly gone insane.

Never mind that it would be hilarious to see the courts slap down this law in about 15 minutes. Just the fact that Paul has this crazy notion in his head is frightening and is proof that he has no business being the most powerful man in the world. He might have some good ideas in other sectors (and I think he does) but this is downright scary. I can't believe that anyone could possibly think this is a good idea. It's a terrible idea by any measure.

Here's a horrifying bit of text from the bill:

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation;

Do you have any clue what this "horrifying bit of text" even reads?" It's saying that the courts cannot make rulings for OR AGAINST religion, sex, or marriage. It's providing the people rights, not taking them away.

Besides the fact that it clearly reads that if you understand legal speak, Ron Paul has repeatedly time and time again explained that's exactly what he's trying to do.

thetonestarr said:Do you have any clue what this "horrifying bit of text" even reads?" It's saying that the courts cannot make rulings for OR AGAINST religion, sex, or marriage. It's providing the people rights, not taking them away.

Besides the fact that it clearly reads that if you understand legal speak, Ron Paul has repeatedly time and time again explained that's exactly what he's trying to do.

Who do you think upholds the Constitution? You got it, the Supreme and Federal Courts. Paul wants to hamstring their ability to rule on the First fucking Amendment. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one having difficulty understanding that text.

What is the point of the Supreme Court if they cannot make rulings based on the document that gave them the power to make said rulings in the first place?

Anyway, almost every single line of this act is unconstitutional. I guess that should count for something if Paul is trying to break the record of "highest percentage of bill that is ruled unconstitutional". Ron Paul is either an idiot for not understanding that his bill is unconstitutional or has such a complete lack of respect for the Constitution that he doesn't care.

Either way, that's not a guy you want in office under the guidelines of said Constitution.

I find the lack of understanding of basic United States law in this thread to be more than a little disturbing. I mean, this is eighth grade shit we're covering, everyone.

I noticed a lack of Ron Paul supporters in this thread. Possibly it's because they don't know he wrote this bill or perhaps it's because they already know he's a crazy person with dangerous ideas and choose to avoid attempts to defend the indefensible. Either way, this should liven it up a bit.

You mean dangerous ideas like staying out of foreign conflicts, balancing the budget, bringing value back to US currency, lowering taxes, etc.